对广义非上下文性的若干常见反对意见的回应
Addressing some common objections to generalized noncontextuality
AI总结：
本文回应了针对广义非上下文性概念定义及其实验测试的常见反对意见，澄清了经典记录不破坏操作等价关系，并阐明了基于复合系统子系统结构证明非上下文性失效的可能性等被低估的事实。
摘要：
何时应将给定的操作现象学视为可接受经典解释？当它可以在广义非上下文本体论模型中实现时。以往许多研究已论证了以此方式回答该问题的合理性，并推动了对广义非上下文性概念的研究。然而，针对该概念的定义及其实验测试的可能性，学界提出了许多批评与质疑。在本研究中，我们回应了其中最常见的若干反对意见。其中一种反对意见认为：若存在关于每次实验运行中实际执行了何种实验室程序的经典记录，则意味着任何非上下文性失效证明所必需的操作等价关系均不成立，进而基于这些等价关系得出的非经典性结论是错误的。我们解释了为何该担忧是毫无根据的。这一回应也使我们有机会澄清关于广义非上下文性的若干事实，例如基于复合系统的子系统结构来证明其失效的可能性。类似地，通过对其他各项反对意见的逐一回应，我们阐明了关于广义非上下文性概念及其实验测试的一些被低估的事实。
英文摘要：
When should a given operational phenomenology be deemed to admit of a classical explanation? When it can be realized in a generalized-noncontextual ontological model. The case for answering the question in this fashion has been made in many previous works, and motivates research on the notion of generalized noncontextuality. Many criticisms and concerns have been raised, however, regarding the definition of this notion and of the possibility of testing it experimentally. In this work, we respond to some of the most common of these objections. One such objection is that the existence of a classical record of which laboratory procedure was actually performed in each run of an experiment implies that the operational equivalence relations that are a necessary ingredient of any proof of the failure of noncontextuality do not hold, and consequently that conclusions of nonclassicality based on these equivalences are mistaken. We explain why this concern in unfounded. Our response affords the opportunity for us to clarify certain facts about generalized noncontextuality, such as the possibility of having proofs of its failure based on a consideration of the subsystem structure of composite systems. Similarly, through our responses to each of the other objections, we elucidate some under-appreciated facts about the notion of generalized noncontextuality and experimental tests thereof.
机构、总结、中文摘要均由AI分析而来，可能存在错误，请以论文正文为准。
